APHC010554962009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 2058/2009 Between: Avula Sharada, Agnigundala [v], Guntur Dist. ...PETITIONER AND The State Of A P Rep By P P Hyderabad Anr and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. E SAMBASIVA PRATAP Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K SRINIVASA REDDY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., challenging the dismissal of the petition vide order dated 26.11.2009 filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) in Crl.M.P.No.3398 of 2009 in C.C.No.165 of 2008, on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Vinukonda, Guntur District. 2. Heard Sri V.Venkata Subbaiah, learned counsel representing Sri E.Sambasiva Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioner/defacto Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.2058 of 2009 2 complainant and Ms.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defacto complainant argued that the evidence of Dr.K.V.Sridevi, Medical Officer was necessary for the purpose of marking of wound certificate and also to speak about the nature of wounds to establish the case of the prosecution. He further argued that the learned Trial Court ought to have issued bailable warrant to secure the presence of L.W.6- Doctor for marking of the wound certificate and deposing about the contents of would certificate but, instead of doing so, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the prosecution for reopening of the case and recall of L.W.6 Dr.K.V.Sridevi, Medical Officer. 4. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the charge was under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’), when the Doctor was continuously not in the station and was undergoing training, issuance of bailable warrant and securing the presence of Doctor would not be proper. Hence, the learned Trial Court having given cogent reasons dismissed the application filed by the prosecution. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsels on both sides. Perused the record. 6. It has to be pointed out that this Criminal Revision Case was not filed by State, but it was filed by petitioner/defacto complainant/injured person/P.W.1. Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.2058 of 2009 3 7. The learned Trial Court categorically observed that the case underwent several adjournments till 05.11.2009 and on that date L.W.6-Doctor by name Sri K.V.Sri Devi, Medical Officer was not present. On 11.11.2009, the Court constable concerned submitted before the learned Trial Court that the Medical Officer was undergoing training at Hyderabad and it was not possible for her to attend the Court for one year. Recording the above submission, the learned Trial Court closed the evidence of L.W.6 and the wound certificate issued by L.W.6 was marked through the Investigating Officer who was examined as P.W.5 by the learned Trial Court. 8. The wound certificate was secured by P.W.5 Investigating Officer in the course of investigation from L.W.6 even in the absence of the evidence of Doctor, the document issued by the Doctor could be looked into by the learned Trial Court to know about the injuries sustained by the Victim. The learned Trial Court opined that recall of the Doctor was not necessary for the purpose of marking of the wound certificate. Therefore, the application was dismissed. 9. The Criminal Revision Case was filed in the year 2009 and it has been pending for disposal for more than one and half decade. 10. The charge was framed for the alleged offence under Section 324 of ‘the I.P.C’. Since the wound certificate has already been marked through P.W.5 by the learned Trial Court, no substantial injustice would be caused to the case of the prosecution. Since the Revision is not preferred by the de jure Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.2058 of 2009 4 complainant i.e., the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ipuru Police Station of Guntur District, but it was preferred by P.W.1/defacto complainant. Against an Interlocutory Order, this Revision is not maintainable as per Section 397(2) of ‘the Cr.P.C’. Therefore, the Revision is liable to be dismissed. 11. Resultantly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to dispose of the C.C.No.165 of 2008 by hearing the arguments of both sides, as early as possible, preferably within two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dated: 06.03.2025 M K K